Comment How about a 3rd or a 4th version? Did i see some uncertainty? You should select your FP very well before, instead of playing basaar and offering a lot of variation to raise your hopes, even before somebody is asking for that. --Makro Freak09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought it would be a problem, although I like this version better. Alternate versions are requested so often, I thought I'd get ahead of the game. I'd be happy to withdraw the other one if it's a problem. If you have some idea how to predict what the picky reviewers are going to want ahead of time, let me know. -- Ram-Man11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)What if I said both pictures were perfect and both should be featured pictures? Seemingly "perfect" pictures are certainly rejected. My iris failed due to a natural tilt. When the standards are that strict, it's impossible to say what little detail someone will have a problem with. Pefection doesn't matter. Even if both versions were perfect, they both won't be featured. No picture is actually perfect anyway, we just decide whether the small imperfections matter, such as with DoF. The other version of this picture shows the ivy in more detail, so it could be more useful as an encyclpedic tool. (You moved your comment, part of which this is a reply to) -- Ram-Man12:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral nominator would never has this problem because he would choose the nicest version in his eyes, as self-nominating authors should do, too. --Makro Freak13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I should be confident enough in my own picture that I don't need to have two versions to increase the odds of success. That's a good theory anyway. But I really did have trouble picking. I went with the one I did because the crowd here doesn't usually care for tightly cropped images. I often prefer the closer ones with finer details and a more "intimate" feeling, but they are less likely to succeed. In fact, the ones that are most successful as FPs are not the ones that my friends and family prefer (My extended family is full of photographers, horticulturalists, and art lovers). Neither the rule of thirds nor tightly cropped images, which have aesthetic appeal to everyone I know, have much power as potential FPs. I often don't nominate the ones that I prefer in favor of another version just because of different preferences. -- Ram-Man15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can find one who is doing the selection for you. Norro, Simonizer and D-Kuru have a good nose, potential selectors. I tend to inform these guys in the future and dont nominate for myself. Its more souveraign and timesaving, i think. --Makro Freak22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is no problem in nominating various pictures or various versions of the same objects. Regardless if there are one or four versions the best will get featured. --norro11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a big problem in general, it was just my opinion. It would be more fair, particularly if you nominate your own pictures to give some room for the other pictures instead of taking the space from end to end, trying catching more attention . Surely, if you nominate your own pictures after a while you loosing a bit of relation, instead of being modest. I felt i must say that. --Makro Freak12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a second version after the fact usually results in fewer votes because people don't bother to look for it. Nominating it up front solves that problem. -- Ram-Man12:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about a 3rd or a 4th version? Did i see some uncertainty? You should select your FP very well before, instead of playing basaar and offering a lot of variation to raise your hopes, even before somebody is asking for that. --Makro Freak 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think there is no problem in nominating various pictures or various versions of the same objects. Regardless if there are one or four versions the best will get featured. --norro 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
